Mary the Queen of Heaven

So you're basically saying then that *belief alone* in the name of Jesus is not enough. You just agreed with me here, but unintentionally I'm sure. So Kevin--if belief alone won't get us there and even doing these good works in the name of Jesus won't do it either--then why do you suppose that the Apostles like Paul and James both tell you that "faith without works is dead" and that it's possible to fall from grace?

I'll explain: Because our faith in Jesus is why we do what we do because living in faith means that you're walking in the spirit of the Lord. When we walk in the spirit of the Lord we are answering our calling and what we do as in "works" then is done by the leading of the Holy Spirit and not something we do outside of faith in Jesus to obtain righteousness by our "dead works".

Many of you are very confused about the difference between "dead works" and "works of faith" and this is why you can not reconcile your beliefs with James or the Apostle Paul who most certainly tells us that "faith without works *of faith* are dead works. "Dead works" are representative of what the Jews did in the OT and under the Old Covenant to obtain righteousness absent faith. "Works of faith" are what we do now living in the NT and under the New Covenant of grace through faith.

You could not possibly believe in being once saved always saved if you truly understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is paramount to your eternal salvation and you need to seek this out for your own spiritual well being.

I'm not confused at all. Salvation is by grace alone, not of works. I can list a hundred verses proving OSAS, eternal security of the Believer. BECAUSE you are saved you will want to do good works but good works don't save you or "keep" you saved.

We cannot add anything to Jesus' finished work. His free gift of salvation is FREE. If you realize that you are a sinner and deserve hell and Jesus died for your sins, rose again and is coming again- you are saved. ALL Believers still SIN every DAY after we are saved. You are confusing SANCTIFICATION with SALVATION. Sanctification is a daily PROCESS whereby we become more and more like Jesus. Salvation is a one time event where we are forever justified in God the Father's sight because we accepted His Son's free gift.


God cannot save and unsave you. How many sins must one commit after they are saved to lose their salvation? The most important question of life- our eternal security- God won't leave us "hanging". It is SETTLED ONCE FOR ALL. THE PENALTY was paid. God keeps us till the day of redemption; not one sheep is lost.


You are focusing too much on fleshly works and yourself and not fully on God. In reality is the utmost disrespect to our Lord and Savior because by trying to be obedient you are taking your focus on what Jesus did for you and putting on yourself. Nothing you can do can get you to Heaven. Nothing you can do can keep you out of Heaven if you are truly saved.
 
that site is correct. Please show me where you disagree, just one thing. It is all biblical. Take off the hater glasses.
 
Like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy offers a sacerdotal interpretation of the Christian faith. That is, it emphasizes the Church, and especially the hierarchy of priests who allegedly mediate Christ and His salvation to His people. As we have seen, sacerdotalism entails that priests and bishops alone have the right to determine the true meaning of the New Testament for the faithful. Similarly, it entails that the priests alone hold the keys of the kingdom of God--the sacraments--in their hands.


Here, in a nutshell, was the bone of contention that gave rise to the Reformation. After centuries of toil under this kind of authoritarian system, the Reformers finally repudiated the sacerdotal interpretation of the Christian faith. Returning to the New Testament itself, they found to their amazement that Christ alone is the one Mediator between God and man, and that all true Christians are part of His eternal priesthood (1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 2).

This radically biblical view once again placed all believers under the direct authority of Christ and the apostolic writings. And this, in turn, made it possible for them to re-examine centuries of Christian tradition, much of which they found, to their amazement. was completely unbiblical.

Thus, the Reformers not only challenged Catholic views on authority and salvation, but also on the mass, the number and nature of the sacraments, the veneration of Mary, prayers to the saints, the use of icons and relics in divine worship, and more.

Succeeding generations of biblical Christians would question infant baptism, traditional ideas about Church-State relations, the gifts of the Spirit, and the true nature of Church government.


http://www.clr4u.org/writings/essays/eastern-orthodoxy-evangelical-critique.html
 
Kevin, the word "covenant" means LAW. Under the Old Covenant--the old law of Moses, the Jews were cursed under that law of dead works for their failure to keep those laws perfectly and to the letter of them.

Under the New Covenant and LAW--we live by faith--meaning that the works we do now are done in response to what Jesus is telling us to do and how to live through His Holy Spirit. We still must *work and labor, but now under the NEW LAW of faith--what we do is not by ceremonial rituals. What we do now is done in a spontaneous reaction to the Holy Spirit of God.

You are confused about *which law* Paul and James are referring to when Paul tells you not to do works under the old law, but to do good works in faith under the New Law as referenced here:

Justified by Faith

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Acts 13:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.


1 Thessalonians 1:3

Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;



2 Thessalonians 1:11

Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:


Examples of "works of faith":



Matthew 5:16

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


John 10:32

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Acts 9:36

Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Romans 13:3

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Ephesians 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


1 Timothy 2:10

But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


1 Timothy 5:10

Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


1 Timothy 5:25

Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


1 Timothy 6:18

That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


2 Timothy 3:17

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Titus 2:7

In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Titus 2:14

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Titus 3:8

This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Titus 3:14

And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Hebrews 10:24

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


1 Peter 2:12

Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

King James Version (KJV)


none of these works save you or keep you save. How many works must I do to be saved?
 
Like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy offers a sacerdotal interpretation of the Christian faith. That is, it emphasizes the Church, and especially the hierarchy of priests who allegedly mediate Christ and His salvation to His people. As we have seen, sacerdotalism entails that priests and bishops alone have the right to determine the true meaning of the New Testament for the faithful. Similarly, it entails that the priests alone hold the keys of the kingdom of God--the sacraments--in their hands.


Here, in a nutshell, was the bone of contention that gave rise to the Reformation. After centuries of toil under this kind of authoritarian system, the Reformers finally repudiated the sacerdotal interpretation of the Christian faith. Returning to the New Testament itself, they found to their amazement that Christ alone is the one Mediator between God and man, and that all true Christians are part of His eternal priesthood (1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 2).

This radically biblical view once again placed all believers under the direct authority of Christ and the apostolic writings. And this, in turn, made it possible for them to re-examine centuries of Christian tradition, much of which they found, to their amazement. was completely unbiblical.

Thus, the Reformers not only challenged Catholic views on authority and salvation, but also on the mass, the number and nature of the sacraments, the veneration of Mary, prayers to the saints, the use of icons and relics in divine worship, and more.

Succeeding generations of biblical Christians would question infant baptism, traditional ideas about Church-State relations, the gifts of the Spirit, and the true nature of Church government.


http://www.clr4u.org/writings/essays/eastern-orthodoxy-evangelical-critique.html

The author commits the fallacy fallacy claiming that the EOC and/or RCC are incorrect because they appeal to tradition. In this context, it's an epic fail. The Christian religion-like most other religions-relies on tradition almost entirely to justify its claims. The Reformers were right in many ways about the Papacy, but that's all they got right. The rest of their claims, doctrine, and dogma is partially or entirely incorrect. This has been demonstrated by many writers, but the most concise and readable I know of is "Orthodoxy And Heterodoxy". http://amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heterod...1240&sr=1-1&keywords=orthodoxy+and+heterodoxy

You are of course free to beleive as you wish, but you do not have true facts on your side, Kevin. God bless and good night. ~hugs~
 
Like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy offers a sacerdotal interpretation of the Christian faith.

. . . the Reformers ...challenged Catholic views on ... the veneration of Mary, prayers to the saints, and more.

Succeeding generations of biblical Christians would question infant baptism, . . .

Catholics emphasize scripture as much if not more than any of the evangelical/protestant christian faiths . . .
Revelations and the Queen of 12 stars is part of one of the Holy Rosary "Glorious" mysteries but ignored by those non-Catholic (/non-EO) Christian/evangelical/protestant cults.

So Catholics are to be considered MORE scriptural - but just not sola scriptura as are the protestant evangelical christian cults started by a man named Luther (the anti-semitic writings of Martin Luther are appaulling)

Why do many protestants not recite the Lord's Prayer as written in scripture ?

. . . challenged Catholic views on ... the veneration of Mary, prayers to the saints, and more.

Don't gloss over the more part please . . .
the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal jus' about 100 years ago now is ignored by the protestants as what . . . alien invasion ?
the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred around the globe are what to them . . . ? ignored . . . ok - protestant cults have that right to freedom of religion as well.
So suceeding generations of the protestant evangelicals question everything that occurs - since the age of Jesus Christ - that jus' seems blind.

We will even bring up the discovered 'God particle' (the Higgs boson) -
scripture writers like Luke would have had a tough time writing much about this . . . hah, English - the predominant language of physics - wasn't invented as a language yet - yet we in the 21st century can, and do.

Read Rome Sweet Home or other discussions of protestants that have come to recognize that the Catholics are very scriptural indeed -
but not just sola scriptura.

Peace and God bless.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
none of these works save you or keep you save. How many works must I do to be saved?

What did Jesus tell you "glorifies The Father in Heaven--belief alone? Belief requires faith and faith requires a work of faith to give evidence of what it is that we believe. That's called being saved *by Grace and *through *Faith!

Jesus said this in Matthew----Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Where's your light if no one can see who you are and what you believe by the things that you say and do? That *is your light. Just like Paul tells you---James tells you--Jesus tells you--Hebrews--Matthew--Mark--Luke--John and the book of Revelation all tell you that you can not simply make a one time confession of belief and inherit the kingdom of heaven absent faith--. Grace and through faith--meaning only "through"--something else can grace be of any effect in our lives. Our faith is what we do in response to our belief. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Even in this life--we all must be and do what it is that we believe or else we have no proof that we are who we say we are. No one believes you without evidence of your work, life and history to verify and validate that yes--Kevin is indeed who he says he is because look at how he lives and the things he stands for.

Jesus finished the work on that cross by fulfilling the Old Law for mankind which now enables us to either accept or reject the gift of salvation. We have a choice in this matter. Yes--faith and our works that follow are the evidence of who we are and yes--they indeed do save because they are the evidence of our faith in Jesus Christ.

Without believing Christians doing the earthly works of Christ in faith--there would be no churches--no witnesses for Christ--no one feeding the hungry, poor or caring for the sick and needy. We are commanded to love one another how then--------by doing those works of faith and labor of love for one another. What kind of Christian ignores the voice of the Holy Spirit calling them to do something who then sit around living ungodly lives thinking that their one-time confession has eternally secured them?

Jesus Himself told you that your good works are your light! Without these works that we do in faith--we have no light because no one can see our light and we fall into darkness once again. Yes Kevin--people can and do fall from grace and salvation and the only thing that keeps us in faith in this life is continually walking in the Spirit of the Lord by doing the works that the Holy Spirit is calling us to do. Hebrews 6:4. Without us producing the fruit of the Spirit which are our good works and our lights--that part of the vine is cut off because it has become dead being non-productive for lack of saving faith. John 15: 1-8.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains
all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness,

Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations
It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
 
All I know is this--that the Catholics--for whatever else has been added to or taken away ARE the KEEPERS of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the key to salvation for mankind. Whatever other traditions or practices they have can not take away from them who believe and practice that primary core belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Protestants can not understand that when Paul condemned traditions--he was speaking to the Jews who practiced Old Testament traditions still in place of faith. Paul then turns around asserting that Christians are to hold fast to their own Christian traditions in the church. These traditions are indeed evidence and a recorded history of faithful believing saints of God who came before us--teaching us--guiding us in the Spirit of the Lord. They were our shepherds and elders--and lights unto this dark world who left us their testimonies and legacies to strengthen the earthly church that draws those in who are being called to salvation. They should never be forgotten or ignored for their sacrifices toward the kingdom of Heaven and most certainly deserve to be venerated and remembered for who they were and what they stood for.

Without the sacrifices and work of the departed saints and apostles of God--and the traditions that follow their work in this world--there would be no church--no evidence and no tradition that draws the lost souls to Christ.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TER
TRADITIONS that are FOUND in THE BIBLE!


The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural. Paul has 5 references, 2 of which are derogatory (Col.2:8; Gal.1:14). Peter also has one reference also derogatory 1 Pt.1:18. (the aimless conduct received by the tradition of the fathers). For Peter to be called the first Pope and does not uphold this practice does not help their position.

The first time is is mentioned is by Jesus in Mt. 15:2-3 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” Nowhere does Jesus teach there is a tradition of men and of God.
He goes on to give an example of their tradition that went against Scripture. It was the written Scripture that was the authority for any other teaching.

Another time he was asked about eating bread before washing their hands. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” And He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” They had a choice but instead defaulted to their own rules that they thought was biblical.


There are other instances of tradition in the Bible but they are all scriptural or do not contend with the scripture teaching itself. An example of this is in Jn.10:22 with the feast of dedication (Chanukah). Jesus did not refute this because it was a actual historical event. Yet if the leaders had made it mandatory it would have received a different reaction from Jesus. We do have the freedom to hold for our personal enjoyment practices of individual choice. However this is not what the Roman Catholic Church is claiming. They are teaching that these were handed down from the Apostles (some of which are found from Scripture) and are commands and even necessary for ones spiritual life.


Paul explains in Gal 1:14 “And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul understood the differences of what tradition was and what was Scripture is.

Upon only 3 verses that have the word “tradition” in the Scriptures, Catholicism’s entire practice for traditions being of equal status with scripture are founded on these. Despite the fact that the same Scripture that mentions the word tradition makes it clear from both Jesus and the apostles writings that they are to be our source of life. So lets look at this Scriptures carefully and see what they say and what they do not say.


1) 1 Cor.11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; Here Paul states he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them in person, that which I also delivered unto you.”

This pertains to the communion and how it is to be taken. So what he had taught orally was inscripturated, so there no validation for oral tradition here. Paul most likely learned of the communion by the other apostles as they fellowshipped and broke bread each week. However Paul learned more of this from the Lord and is the only apostle to write in detail about it.

2) 2 Thess. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

Both which were taught were the same that was written down. What traditions is Paul talking about? In v.5 Paul previously stated “ Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” This Paul says he already taught them in person but now is writing it down. Consistent with the rest of the teachings, everything said was written down that would be used to have one practice their Christian relationship.

He was giving them and us in writing what he had previously taught. Which was about the man of sin, to provide further understanding clarifying any misconceptions they had, Since the epistle starts off with the church shaken up by a false letter or word they received that the resurrection already taking place and they thought they missed out. So presently he is elaborating on the details of the tribulation and the falling away.

3) 2 Thes. 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (some translations have teaching, at any rate teaching can be passed on orally before it is committed to writing) which he received from us.” Again if we go further we find what is being said which proves all should be read in its context. V.10 “for even when we were with you we commanded you this, If anyone does not work neither shall they eat.”

It was the same thing by personal word or by letter. They showed this teaching by example as they were with the Corinthians and he put in writing what he had taught them earlier. This way they would not forget or corrupt it after his death. None of these scriptures have any relationship to the traditions presently taught and practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. Further no one has ever documented any specific teaching to be accredited to Paul in their traditions. Obviously not everything the apostles “said” is written down but the doctrines are. So there is nothing spoken that was not written that we would need to know about salvation and living. For example Paul says in 1 Cor.15:1 “Moreover brethren I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you...” Here it is written out.

The only revelation we have today is the same committed to the apostles that was written down, this was what the church accepted and practiced after the apostles, that which was written, not what is spoken. The same Paul who is claimed to write of traditions specifically tell us in 1 Cor.4:6 “do not to go beyond what is written.” How could he do this if he approved of the apostles oral teaching alongside the writings? He couldn't. That is why what was taught was penned on paper, pointing to the Scripture as our final authority.

Every time the Pharisees the religious men brought up traditions as equal to the Scripture Jesus brought them to the word. This is why he called them the traditions of men because they did not come from God but by religious men who no longer intended to obey the word.

In Acts 20:29 Paul warns the Ephesian elders about savage wolves that would come after his departure. It would unlikely to think that Paul did not put in writing what the Holy Spirit inspired as teaching to all the churches. It would be much easier to distort what is orally handed down and left up to individual re-translating. As time would go on generations would pass on memories that would be inaccurate to recall the original teachings by word of mouth. This is why God had Moses write everything down in the book of the law, so there would be no question what was said, any mistakes would be minimized. If God did so in the Old Testament would he change this policy in the new. Jesus pointed to the Old Testament word. The early church pointed to the word written as well.

When we look at the examples of tradition in the Scripture we find its purpose does the very opposite of the word written. If the traditions the Catholics hold are suppose to be a body of teaching that was passed down by the apostles oral tradition, why are they written down? Why are they not included in the bible if they are written down. After all they are suppose to be apostolic teaching.

Catholics “Sacred Tradition” becomes invalid if in any point it contradicts the Bible. Catholic teachings of purgatory, penance, indulgences, Mass, praying the rosary, praying to saints and Mary, wearing scapulars, are not found in the Scripture and they contradict scriptures teachings. Any verses found to validate these by Catholics are always subject to being redefined or pulled from its actual context. The Catholic Church has used their Traditions to make them equal to word when. The fact is that God says nothing has this kind of authority except the word itself.

In the New Testament Period Jesus whole ministry was a contention with the Pharisees traditions. They wanted him to validate and approve what they called the tradition of the elders (fathers) Mk.7:1-9 Mt.15:1-4 contention grew between Jesus and the religious leaders as they wanted his approval of their traditions to be considered equal with Scripture. Jesus was clear he was not going to approve of their traditions saying you lay aside the commandment of God and hold higher the tradition of men.”

They challenged Jesus on the cleansing rituals. Jesus responded its not cleansing from the outside, but mans heart from the inside is what needs the cleansing. The Pharisee’s set up a barrier between God and man making the commandments of no effect because they stopped people from seeing the word of God. Jesus always brought their traditions to the ultimate authority the word of God.

Mk.7: “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me and in vain they worship me teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.” By adding traditions alongside the word they watered down the truth This is why Jesus quoted Mt.11:28 “Come to ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you REST.”

The Pharisees laws were burdens that God never intended, it brought the people into bondage because it went beyond Scripture and was never intended to do what God inspired to be written. Nowhere is it written to continue to have traditions by word of mouth after the apostles.

Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions, Neither did Paul as he said in Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST.”

He said to” let the word of God dwell in you richly.” It is the word of God that is living and active (Heb.4:12) to change one from the inside, traditions can never be a alternative or of equal value to what God has spoken and written down for all generations to live by.


http://www.letusreason.org/rc13.htm
 
Last edited:
TRADITIONS that are FOUND in THE BIBLE!


The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions. Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural. Paul has 5 references, 2 of which are derogatory (Col.2:8; Gal.1:14). Peter also has one reference also derogatory 1 Pt.1:18. (the aimless conduct received by the tradition of the fathers). For Peter to be called the first Pope and does not uphold this practice does not help their position.

The first time is is mentioned is by Jesus in Mt. 15:2-3 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” Nowhere does Jesus teach there is a tradition of men and of God.
He goes on to give an example of their tradition that went against Scripture. It was the written Scripture that was the authority for any other teaching.

Another time he was asked about eating bread before washing their hands. Mark 7:7-9 “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” And He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” They had a choice but instead defaulted to their own rules that they thought was biblical.


There are other instances of tradition in the Bible but they are all scriptural or do not contend with the scripture teaching itself. An example of this is in Jn.10:22 with the feast of dedication (Chanukah). Jesus did not refute this because it was a actual historical event. Yet if the leaders had made it mandatory it would have received a different reaction from Jesus. We do have the freedom to hold for our personal enjoyment practices of individual choice. However this is not what the Roman Catholic Church is claiming. They are teaching that these were handed down from the Apostles (some of which are found from Scripture) and are commands and even necessary for ones spiritual life.


Paul explains in Gal 1:14 “And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul understood the differences of what tradition was and what was Scripture is.

Upon only 3 verses that have the word “tradition” in the Scriptures, Catholicism’s entire practice for traditions being of equal status with scripture are founded on these. Despite the fact that the same Scripture that mentions the word tradition makes it clear from both Jesus and the apostles writings that they are to be our source of life. So lets look at this Scriptures carefully and see what they say and what they do not say.


1) 1 Cor.11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; Here Paul states he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them in person, that which I also delivered unto you.”

This pertains to the communion and how it is to be taken. So what he had taught orally was inscripturated, so there no validation for oral tradition here. Paul most likely learned of the communion by the other apostles as they fellowshipped and broke bread each week. However Paul learned more of this from the Lord and is the only apostle to write in detail about it.

2) 2 Thess. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

Both which were taught were the same that was written down. What traditions is Paul talking about? In v.5 Paul previously stated “ Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” This Paul says he already taught them in person but now is writing it down. Consistent with the rest of the teachings, everything said was written down that would be used to have one practice their Christian relationship.

He was giving them and us in writing what he had previously taught. Which was about the man of sin, to provide further understanding clarifying any misconceptions they had, Since the epistle starts off with the church shaken up by a false letter or word they received that the resurrection already taking place and they thought they missed out. So presently he is elaborating on the details of the tribulation and the falling away.

3) 2 Thes. 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (some translations have teaching, at any rate teaching can be passed on orally before it is committed to writing) which he received from us.” Again if we go further we find what is being said which proves all should be read in its context. V.10 “for even when we were with you we commanded you this, If anyone does not work neither shall they eat.”

It was the same thing by personal word or by letter. They showed this teaching by example as they were with the Corinthians and he put in writing what he had taught them earlier. This way they would not forget or corrupt it after his death. None of these scriptures have any relationship to the traditions presently taught and practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. Further no one has ever documented any specific teaching to be accredited to Paul in their traditions. Obviously not everything the apostles “said” is written down but the doctrines are. So there is nothing spoken that was not written that we would need to know about salvation and living. For example Paul says in 1 Cor.15:1 “Moreover brethren I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you...” Here it is written out.

The only revelation we have today is the same committed to the apostles that was written down, this was what the church accepted and practiced after the apostles, that which was written, not what is spoken. The same Paul who is claimed to write of traditions specifically tell us in 1 Cor.4:6 “do not to go beyond what is written.” How could he do this if he approved of the apostles oral teaching alongside the writings? He couldn't. That is why what was taught was penned on paper, pointing to the Scripture as our final authority.

Every time the Pharisees the religious men brought up traditions as equal to the Scripture Jesus brought them to the word. This is why he called them the traditions of men because they did not come from God but by religious men who no longer intended to obey the word.

In Acts 20:29 Paul warns the Ephesian elders about savage wolves that would come after his departure. It would unlikely to think that Paul did not put in writing what the Holy Spirit inspired as teaching to all the churches. It would be much easier to distort what is orally handed down and left up to individual re-translating. As time would go on generations would pass on memories that would be inaccurate to recall the original teachings by word of mouth. This is why God had Moses write everything down in the book of the law, so there would be no question what was said, any mistakes would be minimized. If God did so in the Old Testament would he change this policy in the new. Jesus pointed to the Old Testament word. The early church pointed to the word written as well.

When we look at the examples of tradition in the Scripture we find its purpose does the very opposite of the word written. If the traditions the Catholics hold are suppose to be a body of teaching that was passed down by the apostles oral tradition, why are they written down? Why are they not included in the bible if they are written down. After all they are suppose to be apostolic teaching.

Catholics “Sacred Tradition” becomes invalid if in any point it contradicts the Bible. Catholic teachings of purgatory, penance, indulgences, Mass, praying the rosary, praying to saints and Mary, wearing scapulars, are not found in the Scripture and they contradict scriptures teachings. Any verses found to validate these by Catholics are always subject to being redefined or pulled from its actual context. The Catholic Church has used their Traditions to make them equal to word when. The fact is that God says nothing has this kind of authority except the word itself.

In the New Testament Period Jesus whole ministry was a contention with the Pharisees traditions. They wanted him to validate and approve what they called the tradition of the elders (fathers) Mk.7:1-9 Mt.15:1-4 contention grew between Jesus and the religious leaders as they wanted his approval of their traditions to be considered equal with Scripture. Jesus was clear he was not going to approve of their traditions saying you lay aside the commandment of God and hold higher the tradition of men.”

They challenged Jesus on the cleansing rituals. Jesus responded its not cleansing from the outside, but mans heart from the inside is what needs the cleansing. The Pharisee’s set up a barrier between God and man making the commandments of no effect because they stopped people from seeing the word of God. Jesus always brought their traditions to the ultimate authority the word of God.

Mk.7: “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me and in vain they worship me teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.” By adding traditions alongside the word they watered down the truth This is why Jesus quoted Mt.11:28 “Come to ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you REST.”

The Pharisees laws were burdens that God never intended, it brought the people into bondage because it went beyond Scripture and was never intended to do what God inspired to be written. Nowhere is it written to continue to have traditions by word of mouth after the apostles.

Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions, Neither did Paul as he said in Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST.”

He said to” let the word of God dwell in you richly.” It is the word of God that is living and active (Heb.4:12) to change one from the inside, traditions can never be a alternative or of equal value to what God has spoken and written down for all generations to live by.


http://www.letusreason.org/rc13.htm


Excellent post, thank you for posting that!

It seems very clear to me that in the New Testament, over and over and over we see Jesus teaching TRUTH and correcting the mistake of putting MAN-MADE TRADITIONS above God. This following statement:

“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”

...seems to be a recurring theme in the New Testament. He was constantly trying to get through to the Pharisees and the "religious" leaders of that time, that they were following man-made traditions instead of GOD, and that they cared more about their hollow "religion" instead of what really matters.... TRUTH/God's will!

That is why it genuinely amazes me to see so many people GO BACK to the same mistakes that the religious people of that day made, by putting more importance on works, man-made traditions, churchiness, etc.



So is the Bible.


I disagree, but PLEASE let's not turn this thread into another thread on Calvinism.

We're already off topic, and to respect TER's wish to talk about Mary in the original post, someone should probably start a new thread, since we've veered off into other topics.
 
Kevin, is the ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons a tradition of men or of God?
 
Catholics emphasize scripture as much if not more than any of the evangelical/protestant christian faiths . . .
Revelations and the Queen of 12 stars is part of one of the Holy Rosary "Glorious" mysteries but ignored by those non-Catholic (/non-EO) Christian/evangelical/protestant cults.

What's Revelations?
 
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains
all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness,

That's pretty good.

I avoid referring to any belief about the Bible that I have as sola scriptura, because I think the label will be taken to connote things I don't believe.

But put the way you just put it, who could possibly disagree with that? Does someone maintain that the Bible is so lacking that it doesn't even adequately convey the Gospel message itself?
 
Last edited:
I think he means the Book of Revelation. Adding an s to the end is a common mistake.

It is a common mistake. But those who make it should not claim to put more emphasis on the Bible than those who do not.
 
I am happy to see you edited your above post.

Can you address the post I made for you last night? I dug it up for you.


Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

This was written within a few generations of the Day of Pentecost, just a few years after the death of the last of the 12 great Apostles. When he wrote this and expressed the orthodox and catholic faith which had been spread everywhere by these same Apostles, people were still living who had been alive when Jesus Christ died on the cross. (let that sink in for a moment). You say what this man wrote above was a 'later' innovation? My, you are quite the judge of the Holy Spirit and these saints! They do not live up to your standards! And what are your standards? What have you made the pillar and foundation of the truth? The New Testament, which didn't even exist as we have it today? Which only included the first few years of the infancy of the Church, indeed the formative years? But better yet, your own mind has become the decider of what is true and what the fullness of truth is! So to make you right and appease your mind, the Saints who were instructed by the very Apostles were in error and you 2000 years later are right? Wow! I didn't know the Church dissolved and fell into such great heresy so quickly! And I didn't know you were such a great and holy saint and new prophet! Had they only had you to explain to them what it meant to be a Christian and what the Apostles taught, the Church would have never fallen and the Holy Spirit fail so miserably!

This worship and misuse of the Scriptures which is the great heresy of these days insults the Holy Spirit and the saints whom the Holy Spirit worked through and guided 'into all truths'. It belittles the trials and tribulations these martyrs contended with in order to pass down the very books which people now misuse. As if we were made to become librarians instead of members of His Church which has ALWAYS been the part of the Christian goal (indeed, a basis of our very soteriology) from the first days until now.

The above quote was written by St. Ignatius who was a student of St. John the Apostle. He became the third Bishop of Antioch. First was St. Peter, who succeeded the episcopy to St. Evodius (who was one of the 72 Apostles sent by Christ, until 69 AD when he died). Then St. Ignatius was chosen by St. Peter and anointed by the Holy Spirit to take Evodius' place.

When he said the above to them, where was there a large outcry? Did the thousands and tens of thousands of people spread hundreds and thousands of miles away revolt to such words which you consider wrong and heretical? In fact the people in far away Alexanderia and the people in Rome and the people in Jerusalem (people who lived in those apostloic times) gladly and wholeheartedly confessed the same thing, which is the reason why they called him a Saint and to this day have passed down his letters! He did not start some new teaching, or some new church! He was in fact in the same catholic Church spread far and wide which shared in the same faith and cup around the Holy Eucharist! St. Ignatius was only saying what the reality was, how the Holy Spirit formed the Church in the world, which is described in only it's very beginnings in the pages of Acts. You sorely misunderstand the Church simply because it is more convenient for you to stop at the last page of Acts and not have to submit yourself to anything or anyone apart from your own image of God and Christianity. But I refuse to make my fallible mind to be the decider of what is true and less am I inclined to deny the Holy Spirit working in the Church and in these great men and women who established it and defended it, all to the glory of God.

I am sorry if this was a pointed post. I am trying to shake you out of this delusion you have which is that you know more about what it means to be a Christian and to be a member of His Church then all the apostolic fathers and martyrs and saints.
 
I am happy to see you edited your above post.

Can you address the post I made for you last night? I dug it up for you.

Doesn't that fit exactly what I had already told you about Ignatius of Antioch before you posted that?

Yes, he was early, as Church Fathers go, but his views on bishops were clear departures from what the apostles taught, and we can easily prove this simply by checking the apostles' writings themselves. That quote that you put in bold is a perfect example. See what Paul writes about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. What Ignatius was trying to do was to shore up the authority of the bishops whom he considered himself to be unified with, so as to make a clear distinction between their churches and anyone professing Christ outside their churches. I think he had some good motivations for doing this. But he was also clearly wrong to do it. He had no authority to say such things.

ETA: I just noticed that in post 396 you ask me when the innovative departures from the apostles' teachings on bishops began, and you quoted the exact post where I gave you that exact answer. It was right there in what you yourself quoted in the very post where you asked the question.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't that fit exactly what I had already told you about Ignatius of Antioch before you posted that?

Actually, it doesn't. But let's cut to the chase.

The question I have for you is, why are you right and St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John wrong?
 
Back
Top